Sheela Stephen vs The Commissioner Of Land Revenue on 6 December, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933
WPC.No. 34037 of 2011 (D)
-----------------------------------
PETITIONER(S) :
----------------------
SHEELA STEPHEN, REVENUE INSPECTOR
SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ASSIGNMENT NO.1)
CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR-20.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
SMT.N.SANTHA
SRI.K.A.BALAN
SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
SRI.S.A.ANAND
RESPONDENT(S) :
-------------------------
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE,
COMMISSIONERATE OF LAND REVENUE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 033.
2. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF LAND
REVENUE, COMMISSIONERATE OF LAND REVENUE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 033.
3. DEPUTY SUPERINTNEDENT OF POLICE,
VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU,
SHORANUR ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SHAJI RAJ T.K.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-12-2011,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ns
WPC.No. 34037 of 2011
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :
------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LRT-2-60602/07(3) DATED 6/12/2008 OF THE
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE.
EXHIBIT P1(A) : COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE APPENDED PROVISIONAL
SENIORITY LIST OF HEAD CLERK/REVENUE INSPECTOR/VILLAGE
OFFICER FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1-1-2004 TO 31-12-2005.
EXHIBIT P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L.R.E.5-2007/2007 DATED 30/11/2007 OF THE
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE.
EXHIBIT P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SS1.17459/08 DATED 1/5/2008 OF THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT P4 : COPY OF GOVT. LETTER NO.2992/E1/09/VIG. DATED 19.08.2009.
EXHIBIT P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L.R.D2-20749/2008 DATED 14/10/2009 OF THE
COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE.
EXHIBIT P6 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7/2/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LR(T)2-2002/2011(2)DATED 31/1/2011 OF THE
COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE.
EXHIBIT P7(A) : COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE APPENDED REVISED
PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST OF HEAD CLERK/REVENUE
INSPECTOR/VILLAGE OFFICER FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1-11-1998
TO 31-12-2005.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
/ TRUE COPY /
P.A. TO JUDGE
ns
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J
= = = = = = = = = = = =
WP(C).No.34037 of 2011.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 20th December, 2011.
J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is working as a Revenue Inspector. She
is fully qualified and eligible to be promoted to the next
higher post of Deputy Tahsildar/Junior Superintendent. Her
complaint is that overlooking her superior claim, her juniors
have been promoted above her. Initially, when Ext.P2 order
was passed, she was informed that she had been overlooked
due to a mistake and that the mistake would be corrected.
However, while the petitioner was expecting the mistake to
be corrected, she happened to be suspended from service
by Ext.P3 order. Subsequently, she was reinstated in
service by Ext.P5 and is continuing in service. No memo of
charges has been served on her. The investigation in a
vigilance case registered against her is still continuing.
Since no final report has been submitted in the vigilance
case, no charge has been framed by the Court. For the
WP(C).No.34037/2011.

2
above reason, the petitioner contends that there is
absolutely no impediment in granting her the promotion
that is legitimately due to her. She also places reliance on
the decision of this Court in Sasidharan v. State of
Kerala reported in 2008(4) KLT 149.

2. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P6
representation detailing her grievances and claiming the
promotion that is due to her. Ext.P6 is pending before the
first respondent. However, the petitioner complains that no
orders have been passed thereon till date. The petitioner
apprehends that other persons who are juniors to her would
be promoted, overlooking her claims. The petitioner
therefore seeks the issue of appropriate directions to
protect her claim for promotion.

3. I have heard the learned Govt. Pleader also.

4. In view of the fact that Ext.P6 is pending
consideration of the first respondent, it is only appropriate
that the grievances of the petitioner are considered by the
said authority in the first instance.

WP(C).No.34037/2011.

3

5. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of
directing the first respondent to consider the grievances of
the petitioner set out in her representation, evidenced
herein by Ext.P6, in accordance with law and to pass
appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and
at any rate within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment or before any further
promotions of the petitioner's juniors are made, whichever
is earlier and also in the light of the dictum laid down in
Sasidharan v. State of Kerala reported in 2008(4) KLT 149.
It is made clear that if the petitioner is found to be entitled
for promotion from an anterior date, all the consequential
benefits that flow from such promotion would also be
restored to her.